Libranet 2.7 Released

Jon wrote in with news that Libranet 2.7 has been released. I've never tried Libranet, but Debian 3.0 is a fine, up-to-date OS with the usual Debian installation (harder than necessary), so if Libranet offers that Debian goodness with a better installer it should be an excellent choice for both experienced and newbie users.

Comments

I hope 2.7 fixes the bugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I installed Libranet 2.6 on my Red Hat box, and it was rooted within 4 hours. Gaping security holes, though I never found them. Had to uninstall it and reboot.

Re:I hope 2.7 fixes the bugs

[sevynd2]

Where did you get 2.6 ? they dont offer it anywhere. Only 2.0 and 2.7

Re:I hope 2.7 fixes the bugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Nelson laugh *HA HA*

Re:I hope 2.7 fixes the bugs

[sxepirate]

Funny that that 2.6 doesn't exist...how odd.

2.0 however, the prior release, got great security reviews from what I saw.

Debian based distros

[Troy H Parker]

Anyone remember Progeny Debian? I grew somewhat fond of that distro, too bad nothing became of it.

Storm, another promising Debian based distro that I was sad to see fade away.

Re:Debian based distros

[Demona]

I still use my last burned copy of Progeny to do initial installs when I want a Debian system, then follow the conversion instructions to upgrade to the latest Debian, restoring from my own apt-cache archives when possible to avoid unnecessary use of bandwidth. The Progeny installer has just given me less hassles on a broad range of hardware, from old to new, although this may change with the next Debian 3.x update. Never did give Libranet a try, but it looks like that'll have to change.

Re:Debian based distros

[scabbers]

hmmm... I am not quite sure what to think of this (and other distros based on other ones).
On the one hand: sure if they have some good idea to improve and want to make money out of it, why not.
On the other Hand: the improvement has to be real worth it!! Otherwise people (like me, too) will stick to the original.

Re:Debian based distros

[chadm1967]

I've been using it (Libranet) for over two years. It's VERY worth it.

Re:Debian based distros

[MadWilli]

Progeny as a distro may be gone, but the installer is still going strong. There is a debian package for creating Debian install CDs retrofitted with the Progeny Installer, as well as customizable user docs, and other extras.

Progeny Installer

If someone whipped up a progeny iso, I wonder if all the anti-debian trolls would settle down a little.

Re:Debian based distros

[BacOs]

Beta PGI ISOs are available at http://archive.progeny.com/progeny/pgi/

I tried the beta...

[aao-brad]

I tried the beta in an effort to find a distribution that I would be comfortable with. The install goes rather well, and the distribution uses the awesome apt-get package management system. The only reason I didn't keep it around is because I was trying other distros. Libranet is pretty clean compared to some of the others I have tried, and I'm a complete newbie... Go figure.

Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be a moron, I can't see where to download this for free!

Re:Is this free?

[jonestor]

You can download it at the linuxiso site.

http://www.linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=31

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

The version you've linked to is 2.0, the last major release, not the just-released 2.7.

2.7 won't be available for download for ~6 months or so, long enough to try & make back the development money before offering it up. That's been their pattern in the past.

Re:Is this free?

[sevynd2]

Version 2.7 of libranet is not free , they will not offer it for free either. They say in the message boards that it si because not enough people buy it. They also say that they want 100,000 users in 3 months. Nice 5 million dollar income from a debian rip off Hopefully they will make a free version but until then you have to download version 2.0

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this a GPL violation?

Re:Is this free?

[OrangeSpyderMan]

No it isn't. Go and read the GPL. This really gets me... people thinking GPL==free downloads on the net.

Re:Is this free?

[tal256]

Libranet is not a Debian rip off. Libranet takes Debian and adds enhancements. Enhancements that people want. Also, remember that if we get lots of orders, then this means we can spend more resources on helping the Linux community. Right now we only have the resources to focus on just the distribution. - Tal a Libranet developer

Re:Is this free?

[fault0]

Uhm, no. The GPL stipulates that you must give the source if asked at the same price that offered the application. So, if FOO.COM sold GNU tar cd's for $500,000, then they don't have to give the source for anything less than $500,000 (with the binary-if-offered of GNU tar as well, they couldn't charge you $500,000 for the binary and $500,000 for the source as well).

Re:Is this free?

[sevynd2]

Enhancements ? Yeah great, the only thing that you provide is your admin menu , and a new installer. Dont fluff yourself buddy. Your doing the samething that everyone else is in the distro race, your just one of the few that force people to buy your product.

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

what gets me is people confusing the test operator == for the assignment operator =

Duh, free, except for bandwidth costs is reasonable.

Re:Is this free?

[OrangeSpyderMan]

Duh, free, except for bandwidth costs is reasonable.
Grr. It's not up to you how they distribute it, that is my point.

And worry about == and = if you want but until the the "three bar equal sign" is on my keyboard, I'm gonna do what i want.

Re:Is this free?

[fault0]

Jeez, nobody is forcing you to use it (I use Debian/Unstable personally). If you think that Libranet is a Debian ripoff, you obviously don't understand the concept and spirit of Free Software and the GPL.

Remember, it's free as in speech, not beer.
Also keep in mind that they DO offer the last major version free, I think.

Re:Is this free?

[sevynd2]

Find it :) they dont , they publicly state that they dont. Reason: they didnt get enough money from 2.0 users. It is also not free speach you have to pay 45 bucks to download what they have to say.

Re:Is this free?

[schon]

They say in the message boards that it si because not enough people buy it.

Doesn't make any sense to me. I can't download it, I can't try it out... if I can't try it out, I won't buy it. I'm not gonna shell out cash for something without knowing what it's like - especially when there's freely downloadable alternatives.

I've bought Slackware (multiple versions, from Slackware 96 through to 8.1), and it's well worth the money.. during the time it wasn't up to snuff for Desktop use, I bought Mandrake.. both distros were downloaded first, and bought later.

They also say that they want 100,000 users in 3 months.

And I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but some things just aren't in the cards.

If they want to increase their user base, they need to make ISO's available for download.

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

He used the right one. I assume he meant 'people thinking GPL is equal to free downloads'.

Otherwise, using '=' he would be advocating that GPL means 'force people to offer free downloads'.

Re:Is this free?

[sevynd2]

Yes, I agree with you.

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

no he didn't.

If anything he should have written \equiv

duh

Re:Is this free?

[JWL-23]

Well said.

LibraNet has it backwards. If it was available, I'd try 2.7 now. Plus they'd have a jump on everyone else as the first non-beta distro with KDE 3.x and GNOME 2.x.

Looks like I'll still be waiting for RedHat 8 and Mandrake 9.

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't used Libranet but I've been following it and would potentially buy it. What it offers over Debian Woody besides the installer and support is up-to-date packages like KDE 3.03, XFree86 4.2, Open Office 1.0.1, Gnome 2.0.2 and so on. I'm on a dialup so I really don't have the patience to devote a week to downloading some isos and then spend another two days downloading updates.

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

*AAAAND* FOO.COM can't avoid you having the source and binaries on your web site for free download once you paid for it (or obtained at whatever price anywhere else).

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK!!!
And yours are *VERY* good points why you'd buy a burnt CD with a distro which gives you what you want.

Now for all the others, let's remember that all you have to do is buy on of those CDs copy to any server on the net and offer it for free.

Now, anyone else will be able to use it for free (not only as in free speech but as in free beer too).

Re:Is this free?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can't download it, I can't try it out"

Not quite right. If you can find any CD round there (a friend satisfied with the distro, for instance) you are in your legal rigth to copy it install and use it for free.

Now, if you fell the distro earns the money, then, on your own advantage you pay libranet people (or donate) so they can continue with their good work.

Libranet rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using the Libranet 2.0 Essentials free .iso download for about a month now. Libranet is great!
It features scripts for recompiling the kernel (works) and installing NVidia drivers (almost worked, but was easy to fix and has since been updated).
It's much faster than SuSE 7.2 was on the same machine, even making KDE fun to use. And that was before the kernel recompile.
Oh, and did I mention hardware autodetection?
Their "XAdminmenu" is worth having, too, and I understand 2.7 has improvements.

Seriously, go get this!

Hmmm

[term0r]

Considering this is basically Debain 3.0 along with KDE 3, Gnome 2 and OpenOffice, then isn't this just a Woody CD along with an extra's CD, with a better installer?

Talking of which, when I last installed Woody, it took about 5 - 10 minutes, and was the simplest installer I have used to install a linux distro for a while. I dont know what all the gripe is about Debians installer. As long as you can handle selecting what packages you want, and install a module for your network card (and if you can't do this, why are you running linux?) then I do not believe the Debian installer is a very hard installer to use.

All of this is coming from a Slackware user from way back.

Re:Hmmm

[Dran]

What the...?! The installer for Libranet is FINE! Jeez... how could you ever say that?! ;)

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

> As long as you can handle selecting what packages you want, and install a module for your network card (and if you can't do this, why are you running linux?) then I do not believe the Debian installer is a very hard installer to use.

Libranet's aimed at a newer-than-you-are user who doesn't necessarily know what packages to install, and doesn't necessarily know their NIC (and video, and audio, and ...) chipset.

They're running Linux because they want to try a different/better OS, not just because they're 133t enough like you.

Re:Hmmm

[CarrionBird]

Why not say.....

hey if you can't write your own drivers, why are you running linux?

or

if you can't write your own shell scripts, why are you running linux?

Another bit of "silly user, linux is for real men", thinking.

It's not that Debain is extremely hard, it's not. It's just an attempt to make it more accessable to pepole who aren't as advanced as others.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

This explains quite a lot.

Re:Hmmm

[bogie]

But it obviously is difficult to use for most people, especially in comparsion to most of the other distros out there. Why do debian users continue insist that this is the opposite? I've used Corel, Stormix, Progeny, and Libranet and they all managed to put out good easy to use installers years ago. Why are Debian users so against adopting something so common for modern OS's? It could could only help their user base. And yes I do know about the efforts going on now, but considering Debian 4.0 or whatever the next big release won't be out for a long long time Debian is just shooting itself in the foot by not making this their biggest priority.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Well-put. I wish I had some mod points.

Re:Hmmm

[chadm1967]

No, you're incorrect. This isn't just Debian 3.0 with an easier installer. It includes a heck of a lot of improvements over Debian 3.0.

Re:Hmmm

[GoatPigSheep]

As long as you can handle selecting what packages you want, and install a module for your network card (and if you can't do this, why are you running linux?)

And people wounder why linux is not catching on quickly on the desktop...

Re:Hmmm

[sevynd2]

Debian shooting its self in the foot? all these are based on debian, they all did something different. Instead of joining debian they wanted to be better now all but Libranet are gone

Re:Hmmm

[blakestah]

Why are Debian users so against adopting something so common for modern OS's? It could could only help their user base.

Debian users are not. If someone wanted to write and maintain a killer installer, I am quite sure Debian would embrace it.

However, Debian's installer, from potato on, has been quite easy to use. I usually install it across the network using a single floppy in about 20 minutes, and then install packages overnight via the network.

The 'slink' installer sucked rocks, and has given Debian installers a bad name.

Debian is a distro in which 99% of all the work is done by volunteers, and no one thinks writing installers is fun. That is why the Debian installer, while being easy to use and highly functional, is not pretty and flashy and come with the option of using the 'redneck' locale for installation prompts.

Re:Hmmm

[noshellswill]

.... hummm ..... Network .........? Is that like 2 CPUs ? Maybe 68040s huh ? ... fscking gerbalized byte_weenie ---->

Re:Hmmm

[ImaLamer]

Oh shut up.

Why does it bother you that someone has re-written debian's installer (or replaced it)?

You obviously aren't going to use it, and I'm guessing you also are against anyone using on the dreaded "desktop".

and if you can't do this, why are you running linux?

Because it's about not having some fuck-head telling me what to run.

Re:Hmmm

[Wylfing]

Gah, I have to agree. The headlining of this post pisses me off. Slackware was my first distro, and then I went to Debian because of the rumours about apt-get (which are true). Debian install is about as easy as can be. It doesn't look as pretty as Mandrake 8.2, but it's not any harder. Shut up with the "it's hard to install Linux" BS already.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... I tried to install Woody on this box, and well... I never got X to work. After an hour's worth of trying EVERY possible configuration in the configurator, I just ditched it. Sure it may be fast, and apt-get is amazing (I have another computer which is using Woddy, and that install was as smooth as anything - go figure...). Hardware autodetection is a Good Thing (TM).

Re:Hmmm

[jilles]

It appears to be woody with the finishing touch users have been screaming for. It is beyond me why debian developers were unable to do so themselves.

The problem with debian's setup is that it leaves you with a system that requires a lot of manual configuration. If you've done it a couple of times it becomes routine but if you're encountering debian for the first time the installer is not very helpful (to not say very hostile).

It has no hardware detection, the default settings for X are inadequate in almost any case, you need to update all sorts of packages to more recent versions (which are not in stable) and most likely you also need to update the kernel. Not only is the network card not detected but you also need to manually configure other plug & play stuff such as sound cards, printers, scanners etc. Doing so is not easy in a bare bones linux installation and requires manually editing dozens of text based configuration files and running several non trivial commands (for plug and play devices that other linux distros configure automatically).

For some people that is the charm of debian. It gives you the feeling that you are in control and that you are a skilled sysadmin if you manage to get it all working.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't hard to install Linux. For a new user it can be intimidating, though. Sure, we can all get a system up and running in no time with the default installer.

Can everyone get NVidia drivers, set up X, or write CD's their first time? No. When you think about it, the 'install' really doesn't set up much for a new user.

Yet we all expect Linux to do favorably compared to Windows with that attitude? Where is the concern for the user? Selfish attitudes don't get us anywhere.

I used Debian, and now I use Slackware. I'm not really bothered about setting those things up, but I can certainly understand how people could be. In our own best interest, shouldn't we support a solution for them?

Re:Hmmm

[mopsuestia]

Let's not forget that Debian 3.0 also supports eleven different architectures. Sure, Libranet has a spiffy installer for i386. Progeny's PGI supposedly works great for i386 and IA-64. What about Corel and Stormix: again, great installers for i386. The folks of Debian have the daunting task of creating an installer set that will work not only on everything from a 386 to a P4 or Athlon XP, but also on PPC, PA-RISC, SPARC, and even m68k, just to name a few.

Besides that, the task selector in the last few versions of Debian has been very simple to use. Dselect is still there, but only necessary if you need to install specific individual packages.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work that the i386-only Debian derivatives do. They provide valuable services and products that benefits Debian and the Linux community in general. But let's give credit to the Debian folks where credit is due.

Having said all of that, work is progressing on a new Debian installer which should be in the next major version of Debian.

Re:Hmmm

[Quinn]

I've also had problems after Debian's default X11 install. Getting rid of the "UseFBDev" Option in XF86Config usually gets me up and running. I assume it's some kind of accelerating option (it isn't included in the XF86Config-4 manpage), but it's only ever caused me trouble.

Re:Hmmm

[CentrX]

The problem with debian's setup is that it leaves you with a system that requires a lot of manual configuration

No, this is simply not true. You get a working Debian system once it's installed, without a need to edit any configuration files. Of course, if you want to make the configuration perfect for you, that's great and you'd have to edit the configuration files in any other distribution as well.

the default settings for X are inadequate in almost any case

I've installed woody on 5 different systems, each with very different hardware configurations, and X has worked properly through the script used in Debian to configure it (no need to edit configuration files).

you need to update all sorts of packages to more recent versions (which are not in stable) and most likely you also need to update the kernel

No, you don't need to update anything. If you want to update some of your software to more recent versions, then obviously you can update them, and with apt-get and the Debian packages it's easier than in any other distribution. The same is true of the kernel.

you also need to manually configure other plug & play stuff such as sound cards, printers, scanners etc
Sound cards should work fine without any manual configuration. Printers can be configured easily using the many tools available, some of which are as easy as selecting which printer you have. I have no experience configuring scanners.

Doing so is not easy in a bare bones linux installation and requires manually editing dozens of text based configuration files and running several non trivial commands (for plug and play devices that other linux distros configure automatically).

You don't end up with a bare bones Linux installation when installing Debian. You can select and install any of the tools you want without needing to edit anything. "Dozens" of configuration files to edit is an exaggeration even for arcane hardware (which is equally (non)supported on any other distribution) and, just like the rest of this post, is flamebait.

libranet is a debian distribution?

[edrugtrader]

sounds like a research paper database. better check the IP and copyrights...... nah, i'll just sue them now.

I think I'm running Libranet...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done so many apt-get installs/upgrades that I'm not sure you can still call it Libranet.

I'm waiting to take a peek at Xandros which is also a Debian-based disribution. Should be out in the next month or so.

Love it!

[Myuu]

I have the feeling that there is going to be a lot of anti-libranet commentary on this, but I have to say that I love it greatly.

I have been running it for 3 weeks without any problem.

The Pros:
-Great Control Panel, itll even recompile your kernel for you. I tried it, does a good job
-Install sets up your CD burner!
-A heck of a lot of packages on one cd
-even at 2.0 (what, did they skip a couple numbers =P) it came with really current packages

Cons:
-Old KDE and Gnome

Libranet has the ease of SUSE with the power of debian.
I have gotten 3 people on linux using libra.
I'm definitely staying with it (and I've tried out SuSe, RH, Mandrake, Slack, and Debian)

Re:Love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

And just what power is SuSE lacking exactly?

Re:Love it!

[ilias]

Old KDE and Gnome? I believe Libranet 2.7 ships with KDE 3.0 and Gnome 2.0. These are not old.

Re:Love it!

[tal256]

It comes with GNOME 2.0.1 and KDE 3.0.3, that's hardly old.

Re:Love it!

[Myuu]

I meant the older version. sorry

Re:Love it!

[jsantos]

Why? Debian's of course!

Re:Love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly the question is: What power does Debian give you that SuSE can't provide?

Re:Love it!

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

get a clue before you attack an obviously happy (and recommending) user of your OS. there were SEVERAL in his post.

Clue #1 he has been running it for 3 weeks
Clue #2 he specifically mentions it being version 2.0

Re:Love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

if the parent poster has been using it for 3 weeks, and 2.7 *just* came out...

so, english and math are not your subjects of noticeable skill...

Re:Love it!

[chadm1967]

Actually, 2.0 came with the older KDE and Gnome (they were current at the time 2.0 was released). 2.7 included the new KDE and Gnome and a lot of other great window managers (fluxbox, XFce, Icewm, blackbox, Window Maker, etc.). And no, they didn't skip a couple of mumbers. Libranet has been around 2 or 3 years (maybe longer).

Re:Love it!

[ilias]

I know something you don't: there has been a beta test going on for a while now.

Re:Love it!

[ilias]

You're trolling:

1. There has been a beta test going on for several weeks now.
2. Neither Tal nor I attacked Myuu.
3. Myuu's post was not clear as s/he admitted above.

Re:Love it!

[tal256]

My reply wasn't meant as an attack in the least. Sorry if it appears that way.

- Tal

Re:Love it!

[BJH]

The power of... APT-GET!!! (Cue Thundercats roar or something)

Installation not so hard -- and not so important

[Publicus]

I've said this before. The Debian installation just isn't that hard. I'd like to hear some specific points about what makes it difficult other than that it isn't X based, but rather console based.

What I don't think is stressed often enough is that you only need to install Debian ONCE. I'm running it on several machines (home/business) and I haven't even had to reboot to upgrade.

apt-get dist-upgrade

Love it, love it, love it.

Debian Install

[Anonymous Coward]

Mãe estou no Slashdot ...

Aguimar Neto

More info

[term0r]

Also for a good bit of information of what Libranet has check out this

For those that think X is slow..

[Anonymous Coward]

...and can read instructions try Gentoo.

We're still around...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and our tools are a part of Debian 3.0 now. Check out hackers.progeny.com for some examples.

Jeff Licquia
Progeny Employee
(though I'm no spokesperson)

Re:We're still around...

[Troy H Parker]

Glad to hear it, Progeny was my first glimpse at Debian, going to vanilla Debian afterwards I was impressed at how much I missed Progeny.

Linux distribution or food??

[kcbrown]

From their web site:

We built it for our own use and used Debian Hamm ... to do so.

...

We are located in the Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada.

Hmm...sounds like they started by trying to make some Canadian backbacon, eh?

Couldn't find any beer on their website, though...

:-)

Re:Linux distribution or food??

[Anonymous Coward]

On behalf of all Canadians everywhere, I ask that you please kill yourself at once. Thank you.

Xandros?

[stoolpigeon]

Don't you mean Corel Linux?

.

No Free Download?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't GNU require that I be able to download this for free, ie, for bandwidth costs only?

Looks to me like there is no "free" option for obtaining this distribution. Is this a violation?

Re:No Free Download?

[Anonymous Coward]

who covers the cost of bandwidth? Is there some place that you can sign up for and pay a per bandwidth fee to download?

Re:No Free Download?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

well, maybe this is a troll, maybe it isn't.

but no, the GNU license doesn't require you to be able to download it for free. it only states that if you get the binaries from them, they have to provide the source at cost of media.

so if you don't get the binary distro from libranet, they have no reason to give you the source.

what I don't understand, is why the first person to get the binaries and source, doesn't just post it on linuxiso or something. libranet can't really stop them, because the GPL also grants the right to redistribute.

anyway...

Re:No Free Download?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the post. He said "free" as in, free except for bandwidth costs.

Re:No Free Download?

[chadm1967]

You can download it for free. Version 2.0 is available right now on their website. They will, eventually, offer 2.7, as well.

Re:No Free Download?

[uk_greg]

My guess is that someone will, eventually. Y ou can get older versions via download - reference

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/lib ranet

It may just be a matter of time.

exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you can't do this, why are you running linux?

Hell, real men would forgoe any freak'n GUI or installer of any sort and just go source. Anyone that has any 'non-standard' (like that _rare_ ATI Rage Pro </sarcasm>) can damn well suffer until they know every detail and tweakable aspect of the operating environment.

Also, I should point out that since I have driven in traffic drunk many times then it is logical to say that the claims of drunk driving being safe are lies and only ramblings of the foolish... if you can't operate a motor vehicle with a bit of mind and sexual performance enhancing chemicals in your system then why do you have a license in the first place?

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[Anonymous Coward]

> I've said this before. The Debian installation just isn't that hard. I'd like to hear some specific points about what makes it difficult other than that it isn't X based, but rather console based.

It asks the user for specific hardware modules to be used; most people don't know their NIC/audio/video chipsets offhand, and don't really want to. Modern Linux installers don't ask for such details, they figure it out for themselves and do the right things. Console/GUI is less important than the "what hardware module should I use? You tell me!" questions.

> What I don't think is stressed often enough is that you only need to install Debian ONCE. I'm running it on several machines (home/business) and I haven't even had to reboot to upgrade.

What's also not stressed often enough is that *any* OS install is a new-to-the-OS user's first impression. If that first impression goes well, there is a larger tolerance for whatever minor quirks occur later on - a larger well of goodwill available when problems crop up. If the install was a strain, then later problems may well cause a newbie to just give up, as they won't want to keep on having to be Such An Expert just to use a frickin' computer. Modern OSs also understand this.

it takes some effort to get a workstation setup

[Trepidity]

The default Debian install, since it's designed to handle all sorts of uses of the OS, just installs the base. Your average user wants other stuff -- X11 for example -- that it doesn't install by default. Not sure if this has changed, but when I installed Debian I had to manually install X11 by using dselect after the base install finished. And dselect is not the most user-friendly tool. It also took me a long time to get fonts to look decent (by carefully perusing the Linux Font Deuglification HOWTO), but that may be more a Linux/X problem than a Debian one. Setting up my CD burner was also a bit annoying -- I had to mess with modconf to load the ide-scsi module and pass ignore=hdc to the ide-cd module. Not too hard when reading the HOWTOs, but not something I'd want to explain to a non-computer type person how to do.

The upgrading is definitely nice though.

Re:it takes some effort to get a workstation setup

[ivan256]

Not sure if this has changed, but when I installed Debian I had to manually install X11 by using dselect after the base install finished. And dselect is not the most user-friendly tool.

Debian has had tasksel since before potato. You don't run dselect, you check the little box next to the X option, and you're done. I haven't run dselect during an install (or at all) in three years. Similarly there are little check boxes for Gnome, KDE, C/C++ development, DNS server, Apache, DHCP server, database stuff and lots more. Basically what you'd get with any distribution. Just say 'yes' when it asks if you want to run tasksel, and no when it asks you if you want to run dselect and you're set.

As for fonts, it used to be as simple as 'apt-get install msttcorefonts'. Now you need to actually have the font package already on your system and unzipped before running the previously mentioned command.

No way I'm going to install LinuxBra

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks this distro is for women.

Maybe I'm used to it

[glubbs]

Maybe I've installed Debian so many times now that it's just second nature for me... with three computers running it, it's not that hard to do it a lot. :-)

All I use is the first .iso image, edit apt sources by hand (uncommenting the first three), add in my network card's module, make sure I choose "advanced" instead of "simple" install, and I quit dselect as soon as I'm dumped into it (worthless, in my opinion). Every question is straightforward (cfdisk is easy, hostname, IP, gateway, dns, hit the enter key a bunch of times to install everything from the cd, enter root password, create user and then get to installing software)...

Of course, this leaves me with a ~60 to ~80meg OS, and I immediately apt up to sid and install anything I need. I like this method because I know there's little to nothing installed that I don't need.

Re:Maybe I'm used to it

[TKinias]

Maybe I've installed Debian so many times now that it's just second nature for me... with three computers running it, it's not that hard to do it a lot. :-)

Um, how come you've had to install more than three times? (I'm assuming `a lot' isn't just three times.) I thought the whole point of apt-get dist-upgrade was that you don't have to reinstall

<confused>

Re:Maybe I'm used to it

[glubbs]

I'm a hardware junky, always buying more, adding some, taking some out and moving it into another computer. That kind of stuff. I recently had to reinstall because I was running a system off of a 540meg drive, but bought one to replace it.

Since I have all my configs backed up, and installation only takes 5 minutes, and I have a DSL connection, I find that it's simple to just re-install on a new drive, instead of transferring from one drive to the next.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[JanneM]

I tried to install Woody on my old laptop. A few things are really lacking with the installer. First, I wanted to keep one of the partitions where I had my /home. The problem was, all partitions are identified only with /dev/hdaX - with no size indication or other information, it was a hit.and-miss affair to remember which partition had been mounted where. Also, there is a bug with the installer that precludes a net install over pcmcia hardware with a fixed IP adress. There are plenty of other UI disasters, but those two sort of stood out.

Second, the initial package selection systems are _really_ lacking. The simplified task-centered selection seemed like a good idea, but did not work in practice. As it is an old machine, I did not want X or any X applications on it, so I deselected that task. On the other hand, I did want developer stuff, so I selected that. Unfortunately, that resulted in it pulling down X and a lot of related stuff anyway. If there is supposed to be such a task division, it needs to be done well, or not at all. I then ended up in the app for individual package selection. I started to browse it - but hit Enter by mistake, and was dumped out of the program, without a warning and without a chance to undo the action. Not good.

So now I had a bare Woody install - really bare, like in "I need to apt-get less" bare. This was fine with me. For some reason, however, I had a 2.2 kernel. This both annoyed and surprised me, as Woody is supposed to use the 2.4 kernel. No problem - I just pull down a newer kernel package. Unfortunately, the newer kernel packages all had a pcmcia module package that was incompatible with the kernel itself.

I was about to get the kernel source and compile it for myself, but when rebooting to the 2.2 kernel (for the fifth or sixth time that day) I got a kernel panic when trying to boot the machine. As i had been at this for the better part of six hours, I gave up, got the Redhat boot disks, and got a functional, configured, X-less installation done with minimal fuss in two hours.

/Janne

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[Anonymous Coward]

> For some reason, however, I had a 2.2 kernel. This both annoyed and surprised me, as Woody is supposed to use the 2.4 kernel.

2.2's the default kernel; you need to (and did) install 2.4 afterwards.

First tell me what you're talking about.

[fm6]

Both the Slashdot story and the Libranet main web page lack any indication of WTF Libranet is!!!!! Had to dig around before I found out that it was a distro. Come on people! I realize that writing goodful is not anybody's priority -- but "animal, vegetable or mineral" is the first part of any description.

Re:First tell me what you're talking about.

[rodolfo.borges]

I also noticed that.
But it was easly solved with the "About Libranet" button on their main page..

(If I just copy/paste'd this about page I would certainly get an "Informative" moderation point.. :)

Re:First tell me what you're talking about.

[stoolpigeon]

You've got to be kidding

Jon wrote in with news that Libranet 2.7 has been released. I've never tried Libranet, but Debian 3.0 is a fine, up-to-date OS with the usual Debian installation (harder than necessary), so if Libranet offers that Debian goodness with a better installer it should be an excellent choice for both experienced and newbie users.

If you can't figure out from the context that Libranet is a Debian based distro from this description- and then you went to the Libranet home page and couldn't figure it out- then you leave me w/questions as well. Questions like "How does someone this stupid figure out how to start a browser and get on the web?"

Re:First tell me what you're talking about.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How does someone this stupid figure out how to start a browser and get on the web?"

I think you can answer that from your very own personal experience.

How did you start a browser and get on the web?

Prices

[SomeOtherGuy]

I see that they charge for upgrades from one version to the next. (I.E. --> Existing Libranet user $39.95) Does that not kind of make apt-get dist-upgrade a bit useless?

Either way -- if I were going to purchase a new Linux distro, I would give this one a shot. With Debian "Clones" (storm, corel, etal) it has always been a bit of a catch-22, because you have all the power of apt-get, but apt-get is only as good as the updates (and frequency of said updates) waiting on the other end.

Re:Prices

[ilias]

Well, my experience with Libranet is that they do a good job at shipping a stable system with newer packages than Debian Stable (e.g. XFree86, KDE and GNOME).

The Libranet team provides good support and they are very nice people (hi Tal and Jon!). Also, the Libranet user community is very nice and friendly as well.

On the other hand, in this sort of economic climate, the upgrade price is a bit steep (USD $39.95 for the CDs). But you can also download the ISO for USD $10 less (USD $29.95). I don't think this is such a bad deal.

Personally, I'll probably wait a bit before I upgrade. I'm very happy with my Libranet 2.0 system at the moment and I don't really need KDE 3.0 and GNOME 2.0.

Re:Prices

[Anonymous Coward]

ilias,
are you the guy who has been trolling the comp.lang.lisp newsgroup? Your English certainly did improve all of a sudden...

yes, but it still infringes copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious to me what happened to Napster. They allowed files to be hosted on renegade Linux Apache servers. These computers not only served copyrighted materials, but they also were portals for hackers and script kiddies to execute DOS attacks on many websites. The RIAA clearly realizes the importance of IIS and the evilness associated with Apache, and is willing to go to extreme measures to ensure that these Linux fools are shutdown for good. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Re:yes, but it still infringes copyrights

[chadm1967]

What the hell are you talking about? Please, please, please don't compare the security of Apache servers to IIS servers......

Thanks for making me laugh.

Libranet

[crystal dragon]

I currently use both Debian and Libranet on my home systems. While I personally find Debian easy to install and configure, I think that Libranet has done an exemplarly job in making their install very easy. It has hardware autodetection, can set up a burner and zip drive and allows you to easily configure a network or dial up connection in a way that a novice will understand.

There are other benefits as well. They have a package called XAdminmenu that logically groups many administration tools together, a control panel of sort, that is easy to use and properly annotated so that a new user can configure their system. There is also an active user community that is very newbie-friendly. Plus the support provided by their staff is exceptional and often goes beyond the offerings of other software firms.

Naturally there are also the benefits of being a Debian-based distribution. While they base their current release on Woody, you can easily bump it up to Sid if you wish too. And for new users, once they master APT (or Synaptic or GNOME-APT) they will be introduced to Linux with out the hassle of dependency hell. That is worth something right there.

In short, you get a slightly more polished version of Woody, with current software, support, and a pleasent Linux experience for very little dollars. That in itself is a bonus to our community.

For those that bitched: download the 2.0 iso from their site and give it a whirl, then give me your opinion. Otherwise be happy and stick to your distro of choice.

Re:Who cares?

[rumba]

You're in the wrong place. I suggest www.stupidity.com

It's not hard to install

[OrangeHairMan]

the usual Debian installation (harder than necessary)

I hate how everybody always hates on the Debian installer. Seriously, when I first installed Debian (second distro, I was a newbie), I had no problem giving it the six disks, then having it download the packages I wanted, and configuring windowmaker. If people actually bothered to read the installation manual, they'll figure out that the step-by-step installation isn't hard. And if you have to maintain the same distribution for many different platforms and kernels, you can't use a pretty X11 installer, and you have to have the installer be modular.

This is not intended to be a flame at all, and I appricate everybody's feedback. :)

Cheers, Orange

Re:It's not hard to install

[HiThere]

I've successfully installed Debian 3 times, and given up in disgust part way through twice. Not because I couldn't do it, but because I didn't see why it should take so much effort. I've installed most Red Hat versions since 6.0, and a few before that. I've installed a bunch of Mandrake. Debian was the first install of Linux I did, and I did it successfully. I've never exactly failed at a Debian install.

But I've given up in disgust more than once.
Progeny was easy (even if it did misconfigure ppp). LibraNet was easy (the a prior version). Only Debian has been such a PITA. They leave out monitor definitons. In 1999(?) I got a set of Debian disks (beta), and they had left out the definition for a Monitor that they'd defined in a prior set of disks. A ViewSonic G77(?) (not exactly a rare choice). They didn't have any ViewSonic Monitors listed, and when I looked at the update list, the most recent update to the monitors file was years earlier. My guess... someone who hadn't needed to configure his system in years burned the CDs. But they said Debian on the disks in big black letters....

Perhaps the problem is that there are no official Debian CDs. You buy CDs that someone has built. But since I need to get Debian that way, Debian gets the black eye. (I don't have a fast modem, and one of my computers doesn't have any working modem at all [it usually doesn't have a phone line, so a modem card seems an extravagance], so it's CDs for me.)

LibraNet solves this problem, among others. But even when the disks contain all the necessary files, I don't see why the Debian installer is so clunky. (Perhaps Progeny has/will have fixed this. Last time I installed Debian, I used the Progeny disks as a cheat [on a system that had a LAN connection rather than ppp... that doesn't work from Progeny], and the install, even with a broken system [the Progeny site is basically defunct] was a *lot* easier.)

Re:It's not hard to install

[Sam Gibson]

I disagree. Debian was also my second dist (comming from Redhat), and if it hadn't been for a friend of mine I never would have gotten it installed. Who would have know that my Linksys Ethernet adapter module would be called ne2k? Not a newbie. Not that I have a bit more knowledge, I'm able to install it much more easily (and recently was suprised at how much better the Debian 3.0 install was than all the 2.4 series).

The point is; the install manual doesn't help that much (especially when you don't have a connection to the net as was my case) for most new users (this is the case with most Linux documentation IMO).

Re:It's not hard to install

[Julian352]

umm.. last time I checked there were some at debian website

Re:It's not hard to install

[PotPieMan]

Perhaps the problem is that there are no official Debian CDs. You buy CDs that someone has built.

Or you can build official ISO images yourself using jigdo.

Re:It's not hard to install

[HiThere]

That requires a fast internet connection, which I stipulated that I did not have.

Re:It's not hard to install

[Anonymous Coward]

somehow spending US$15 on some disks instead of $x00 for just the base OS?

Re:It's not hard to install

[PotPieMan]

Check the vendors page:

Debian creates and provides its entire distribution free of charge. Debian does not manufacture its own CDs, but relies on 3rd party vendors. To make it easier for CD vendors to provide a high quality disk we provide Official CD images for them. This is the only version that has been fully tested by our testing team and is by far the most popular way to buy Debian.

So choose a vendor from that list, and make sure you buy your CDs from them next time.

Re:It's not hard to install

[OrangeHairMan]

(comming from Redhat)

Me too. 6.2(1?) actually, which gave me a text-based installer like Debian.

Who would have know that my Linksys Ethernet adapter module would be called ne2k?

Not I, although my ethernet PCMCIA card was loaded automaticly on startup. I didn't have to fuss around with any drivers.

the install manual doesn't help that much (especially when you don't have a connection to the net as was my case) for most new users (this is the case with most Linux documentation IMO)

If you don't have a connection to the internet, sure, it's not going to help. And many people might find that the manual doesn't help them. But it told me how to install it, and I think it helps out others too.

And if you don't like the installer, just install Libranet, or boot DemoLinux 2.0, a bootable CD that with a few clicks can install a complete, working, KDE/Gnome environment. :)

Orange

Re:It's not hard to install

[HiThere]

That's where I got the CDs I was complaining about.
(I'm not pointing to a specific source mainly because I believe that they only burned what Debian provided them with.)

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[Anonymous Coward]

you can also install with the 2.4 kernel at the start of installation using option bf24

boot: bf24

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but...

[Mwongozi]

Is the new Libranet based on Debian 3.0? I can't seem to find anywhere that will say so.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but...

[tal256]

Yes, Libranet 2.7 is based on Debian Woody (3.0). This is mentioned on the features page.

- Tal

GPL doesn't require free distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The GPL requires that if they give you the binaries, they're required to give you access to the source as well. And you can do whatever you want (subject to the GPL) with the source.

The GPL means that someone else can buy it and redistribute it for free, but the author is under no obligation to do so. (And that only applies to the GPL components, which may or may not include the installer and other Libranet-specific components.)

Read the GPL

The "cost of distribution" part only refers to distributing the source code to accompany binaries; it doesn't refer to distribution as a whole. The GPL isn't about making all software free as in beer; it's about making sure that all users have access to the source code, and they can do whatever they want with such code. The "all software free as in beer" bit is just a bonus...

Re:Ya.

[grumpygrodyguy]

Installing Linux is such a pain in the ass.

Look mods, this wasn't meant as a flame. It's the truth.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[fault0]

It comes from anecdodal evidence. Plop a newbie right in front of a Debian installer, and they probably won't be able to do it.

I've heard the "I tried installing Debian as my first distro because I heard it's good, but I could install it, gave up, and installed Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE.. then after a year when I became more experienced, I switched back to Debian" story quite a lot.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[dvdeug]

I did not want X or any X applications on it, so I deselected that task. On the other hand, I did want developer stuff, so I selected that. Unfortunately, that resulted in it pulling down X and a lot of related stuff anyway. If there is supposed to be such a task division, it needs to be done well, or not at all.

I'm not sure how much better this could be done. A developers task that does not include a GUI library seems lacking; and GUI library will logically depend on X stuff.

. . . and have access to a lot of bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

i just wished someone offered source cds (.iso download, jigdo download, or just plain selling them)

for people without the bandwith, their just out of luck with gentoo (for now. . . there has been some discussion about a source cd in their forums)

Re:. . . and have access to a lot of bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol...if you can download a source iso then you can download the source with emerge. .: AutoBot :.

Libranet Enhancements

[tal256]

Having a central system administration program is a BIG feature for anyone from a newbie to a seasons sysadmin. Having a good easy to use installer with hardware detection is important especially for people new to Linux, or those setting up lots of machines. You may have time to spend a few hours/days/months tweaking your system, but many people want a system that is ready to go as soon as it's installed.

People also argue, that hey, want up-to-date Debian, just use Debian unstable, get GNOME for experimental, KDE from another source, and XFree86 4.2 from yet another. True, IFF you are quite experienced at using the Debian packaging system, and willing to pick up the pieces when somthing breaks.

Libranet is designed to be a system ready to go from the moment the install is finished. No need to install extra packages, fight with hardware configuration, etc. At the same time it's Debian based so you have the power to do anything you want with your system and have the huge Debian archive as a ready to use resource.

- Tal a Libranet developer

Re:Libranet Enhancements

[sevynd2]

Tal , your absolutly right. The libranet team has the right idea. You are helping the community with time saving functionality. However, you force users to pay for it. I am willing to listen to what you have to say but if you want me to buy your distro you have to sell it to me, without giving me selling points that I can find in other distrobutions for free. I am a firm believer that if you love the distro, support the distro. However what you are asking is support the distro and maybe you will love it or maybe you will find its not right for you. Either way you get your money right?

Re:Libranet Enhancements

[mo wiggley]

Libranet offers a refund if disatisfied. I have used it, and I love it. The main extra for me was the non-RTFM oriented support community. If you dont like it, tell them, get back your money, no problem. Tal also takes regular part in the support forum, which is class a good.

Re:Libranet Enhancements

[tal256]

If users don't pay for it, the developers don't have any money to continue development. This isn't conjuncture, this is a fact. Development costs money, so without money there can be no distribution.

In the case of Debian, developers are either getting paid to work on Debian as part of their jobs, or they work in their free time. Bandwidth, hardware, etc. is all donated. In the case of Libranet funding needs to come from the users.

- Tal

Re:Libranet Enhancements

[sevynd2]

Are you guys getting enough advertisement ? Maybe if you had a larger user base you could get those same things donated to you. I see where you are going with this, but have you thought about the amount of users that will pass you up if they have to pay for it? One other problem is most people that read /. wont buy an operating system off of a review alone. If that was true then everyone would buy a copy of winXP everytime they read an article on MSNBC. I feel sorry for you guys as I do for the rest of the world. Everyone has to pay the bills. I hope for your sake that they buy it just because its base is debian. Wich is as you know a name that people trust.

Re:Libranet Enhancements

[sevynd2]

I like to go to IRC channels to find help and to help others. I went to the libranet channel and there are 5 people including me there. I said hello and there was no response. The message boards that are there for support are from individuals that have paid for the product also ? Very loyal fan base I must say. Forced to buy it with the option to support it for free. I wonder if MS has a message board?

Re:Libranet Enhancements

[sxepirate]

I honestly do think you are missing the point here. I picked up Libranet 2.0 on a whim. I payed the money for the download edition and I haven't had any desire to go to anything else. I'll buy 2.7 as well as soon as I can afford it :-)

As Tal said, it takes the Libranet team time and money to produce their distro, and they do a very very good job, IMHO. Their additions/modifications to the debian base make everything much nicer from an end user's perspective.

Those modifications along with amazing support make the purchase very worthwhile in my opinion. Libranet has also recieved a lot of very positive reviews, which was what led me to switching to Libranet from the Mandrake and Redhat.

I agree that they may lose some user base by not giving away their product, I don't think they'll lose much money in the long run. I sure hope not anyway, I want Libranet to stick around for a long time!!!

Hez, very happy Libranet user

Re:Libranet Enhancements

[JWL-23]

"In the case of Libranet funding needs to come from the users."

Agreed. But then why are you severely restricting the number of users you have by not offering your product available for free?

You have it backwards. First you have to attract users. Then you ask them to support you.

Re:Libranet Enhancements

[Anonymous Coward]

Libranet offers a refund if disatisfied. I have used it, and I love it.

You love to use the refund?

GayTUX

[Anonymous Coward]

Evangalismn means the product dosen't have anything *REAL* to sale. IT's a shame about that disgusting huge penguin taking over the site, otherwise I might have been interested in giving it a try.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[ivan256]

all partitions are identified only with /dev/hdaX - with no size indication or other information

If you choose the "Partition your hard disk" option, it will show you the filesystem type and size of existing partitions when it runs cfdisk. I consider the lack of partition lables a design flaw in the msdos partition table format. If you're using other patrition table types it will correctly show you the labels too.

Also, there is a bug with the installer that precludes a net install over pcmcia hardware with a fixed IP adress.

I just did this today and it worked fine. You must have experienced user error.

So now I had a bare Woody install - really bare, like in "I need to apt-get less" bare.

This is not an ideal solution, but it sounds like what you wanted was a bare system, plus the "build-essential" meta package. It will install all of the stuff you wanted (libc-dev, less, gcc, make, etc...) without X. If you want other non standard development libraries you'll still have to load them yourself, but it's a mere 'apt-get' away. The build-essential package is great for when you want a minimalist development environment without all the typing.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[JanneM]

There could be several things. Split the choice of developer tools into a 'basic' and 'X-related' part; make the 'X server' choice active whenever you choose devel tools; remove the 'X' part altogether; bake the 'devel' option into the other options, so they would 'know' which devel packages to install.

Presenting a choice that in fact is not doable is not the way to do it, however.

/Janne

don't worry about it

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

you included in your post that you were talking about version 2.0. if other people are idiots and want to start flaming, then hey, that's there problem.

what's really concerning is that you are obviously a user and advocate of the OS, and their own developers are flaming you, when all they had to say was, "Version 2.7 comes with KDE xxx and Gnome xxx". But no, they decide to go the "stupid moron, what do you mean old" route.

That Debian Goodness

[fm6]

I can see how these phrases might equate to "A nice Debian-derived distro" -- to a Debian user. To this non-Debian user, they implied some kind of software associated with Debian.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[lubricated]

>I've said this before. The Debian installation just isn't that hard. I'd like to hear some specific points about what makes it difficult other than that it isn't X based, but rather console based.

You have to know exactly which kernel modules to use for you ethernet card. Redhat autodetects. Debian doesn't autodetect or suggest any hardware.

Re:Who cares?

[chadm1967]

Nothing more that a toy?????

I work for a very large medical diagnostics company and we are in the process of removing some Windows 2000 servers and replacing them with Linux servers. It's going to save the company that I work for millions of dollars.

Hell of a toy, huh?

Stormix

[slagdogg]

Easy Debian installation is a nice idea, but I think Stormix did a wonderful job when they existed. It was my first Debian installation experience -- they did everything right. It wasn't just (X) eye candy either, they actually added some neat features like auto-detection of Windows partitions and lilo configuration for such things. I had a dual boot system without even so much as glancing at /etc/lilo.conf. I can't imagine this distro is doing anything better (technically, at least) than Stormix, but I wish them luck.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[laserjet]

Your points are good ones. Why should I remember the chipset in my video card when the OS can do it for me?

Debian *had* a good installer with Progeny. I don't know why it got canned, but I thought they (Debian) were going to use the Progeny installer?

I don't follow Debian closely, so someone correct me if I am wrong.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[SquadBoy]

This is my story of course some of this is due to the fact that the first time I tried was with 2.1 and the next with 2.2 and the installer had become *much* better in that time. I think many people will only be happy when it is GUI based and I don't think that will ever happen.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[norweigiantroll]

The Debian installation is a bit hard, but I prefer Debian because it is one of the few distros that doesn't install everything but the kitchen sink. YOU decide what you want to install AFTER the install phase by apt-get'ing only what you want. Other distros that install all software at install time are very difficult do do this properly (Redhat, Slackware, etc.). Also FreeBSD and Gentoo seem to be good about this too.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[btempleton]

Similar example. I installed Debian and it provided a number of network card modules. I had no idea what network card was in the machine. Why should I?

So I installed with a guess, and it was wrong, so the install was screwed and I had to do lots to fix it. Not at all pleasant.

In addition, today disk space is so cheap that, if you are installing from CD, you should just install everything that doesn't conflict and let people remove later. Don't give them a lot of questions to answer. Even an experienced user (now hitting my 25th year of use of Unix or something like it) gets tired of having to answer a lot of questions that in the end just don't matter.

And the inexperienced user is even more blessed if they don't have to answer those questions. If you can undo, if you can fix it later if you need to, then DON'T ASK. Or ask once if you the user wants to answer more detailed questions or wants a simple install.

Now since Debian network installs, I can see how you want to limit the load on servers, that is a point.

Plug and play is the way to go. If you can ever make it so the user can just plug it in, and it works, do it. Even if it's a bit slower. Does the user want DHCP or static IP? Don't ask the user, ask the DHCP server! Let them undo it later to static IP if they need it.

Host name, time zone, user name and partition style. That's about all that needs to be asked at install time.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[slagdogg]

I've said this before. The Debian installation just isn't that hard. I'd like to hear some specific points about what makes it difficult other than that it isn't X based, but rather console based.

In addition to the other points mentioned, it's probably worth noting that a good portion of Microsoft's NT/2000 OS setup (not sure about XP) is still console based. Specifically, the portions where partitions are selected and managed, and file locations are provided. Most consider the NT installation pretty simple, so I don't think this is a huge issue for people migrating from Windows (read: most).

trolling, eh?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

from Myuu's post: even at 2.0 (what, did they skip a couple numbers =P) it came with really current packages

pretty clear that Myuu is talking about version 2.0.

sorry about the "attack" thing, been a bad, bad day and flat text sometimes carries things it shouldn't.

Of course they skipped a few numbers...

[sejant]

no, they didn't skip a couple of mumbers. Libranet has been around 2 or 3 years

And what number system do YOU use that offers the well-ordered sequence: 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.7 ?!?

Libranet is worth paying for

[Liontooth]

I just ordered a copy. My one gripe with Woody is that it's still using XFree86 4.1, along with KDE 2 and the older QT. I need the latest XFree for xv display in video players and kino. I realize I'd be able to install it myself -- that's what I did with SuSE 7.3. Upgrading KDE, though, seemed too much trouble. I think these guys are doing a great job making Debian more accessible to the non-expert, or someone who just wants some more convenience. Having the code compiled for 486 rather than 386 is also nice.

Free software isn't about nobody making a living from it. I'm happy to support Libranet -- there's a lot of people that could benefit from Debian that aren't ready to take it on cold. I wish Libranet would donate some percentage or fixed amount of their sales to the Debian project, like LordSutch.com does. After all, most of the work is done by Debian, and it would be a good gesture.

I have a few questions for experienced Libranet users, or for the Libranet people on the thread.

First, I have mixed feelings about Libranet's custom installer, Libranet Adminmenu. Part of the attraction for me of going to Debain is that I don't want a layer between me and the GNU/Linux control files. I appreciate adminhelp at times -- I'm enough of a newbie to benefit from it. So the question is, does the Adminmenu generate a host of new files, like SuSE's YaST does, or does it just modify the existing admin files (/etc)? I'd like to see what the machine is doing -- isn't that part of the point of ditching Windows?

Second, a major attraction with Debin is apt-get. Does Libranet have its own apt repository for upgrades? More importantly, can you use apt-get to add applications from Debian archives -- applications that Libranet either did or didn't include? How are dependencies handled in cases of conflict?

Finally, is Libranet feeding its improvements back to the Debian project?

In my view, Libranet can perform an important and hopefully sustainable service supporting a cutting-edge but stable version of Debian. Just the ticket as far as I'm concerned.

David

Re:Libranet is worth paying for

[Rysc]

Adminmenu (as of Librabet 2.0, and I cannot imagine that this would change) edits the files in /etc, and does it very transperantly. When I waned to learn more about how the auto-setup of my etehrnet worked, I looked at the perl scripts that did it. As far as I can tell, apart from its own config files, Adminmenu does not spew any extra, weird configuration files. It does exactly what you'd do by hand, in most cases, but does it automatically.

Libranet uses purely debian apt sources, except from one additional source on Libranet.com which is used (as far as I can tell) solely for getting updates to adminmenu and xadminmenu. So, no worries, it's still Debian.

I'm not sure about your final question

That obviously means it's not interesting :-)

[billstewart]

If there's a Slashdot story about FooBar1244 being released, and you're not familiar with it, this means one of N things

• You should try to look at the web page for FooBar1244. If it's Not Slashdotted, this means that the product isn't interesting enough for very many people to care about, so unless you're one of the few people for whom this would actually be useful that didn't already know about it, you've wasted your time by reading the web page.
  
• The web page is Slashdotted, because FooBar1244 is really cool, and the reason you don't know what it is is because you're not really cool. You've wasted your time, because all the cool people will be downloading the latest release for the next three days. That's actually OK, because what the web page said was that they've fixed three minor bugs and added Dynamic Animated Skin Authoring to a product you'd never heard of, so you'd have had to have waded half a dozen links down into the menu system to find out what the product actually did.
  
• The product is lame, but it's Slashdotted because it's running on a really lame webserver, so you can't actually tell. You've wasted your time on this fork also (but just because the product is lame doesn't make you cool for not knowing about it, so don't go feeling superior here either.)
  
• The web page is Slashdotted, but some nice person has posted a copy to Slashdot that lets you know what it is. Unfortunately, the posting is modded down to -1 for redundancy, because anybody who doesn't know what FooBar1244 is must be totally lame and out of the loop. So you don't see it either, because you're not a moderator today so you're not reading at -1. So you've wasted your time looking for it anyway.
  

Re:That obviously means it's not interesting :-)

[gmhowell]

* You should try to look at the web page for FooBar1244. If it's Not Slashdotted, this means that the product isn't interesting enough for very many people to care about, so unless you're one of the few people for whom this would actually be useful that didn't already know about it, you've wasted your time by reading the web page.

Funny. They never explain what IIS, Win2k, Win98, Word, Outlook, etc. are in stories. And that site is NEVER slashdotted.

That About page sucks

[Smack]

"Libranet's aim is to build a good system for people to use."

It's typical documentation, it makes sense if you know what it's talking about. If you don't know it's a distro (or rather a "system"), that page doesn't really help you at all. And the front page post was worthless too, as was the site's front page.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[cygnusx]

XP as well. But that's only the partitioning and file copy phase. The first time the installer reboots the machine, you're in vanilla VGA16 mode, then next time, you're in with full display capabilities. All in hands off mode after the first few questions.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[JanneM]

Also, there is a bug with the installer that precludes a net install over pcmcia hardware with a fixed IP adress.

I just did this today and it worked fine. You must have experienced user error.

Nope. With a 3com589 pcmcia card and static IP the install fails. I found the mail of another user with the identical problem, and eventually got confirmation from a developer that this indeed was the case.

So now I had a bare Woody install - really bare, like in "I need to apt-get less" bare.

This is not an ideal solution, but it sounds like what you wanted was a bare system, plus the "build-essential" meta package. It will install all of the stuff you wanted (libc-dev, less, gcc, make, etc...) without X. If you want other non standard development libraries you'll still have to load them yourself, but it's a mere 'apt-get' away. The build-essential package is great for when you want a minimalist development environment without all the typing.

As I wrote, this really was fine; I was aiming for a bare-bones kind of system after all. What was not fine was that I did not get it through consious planning, but through an abysmal lack of anything resembling UI design on the part of the installer. As for the 'build-essential' meta package, it's not too easy installing it without finding out such a thing exists (if that in fact is not the very same package that insisted on dragging X along with it).

In any case it is moot, as the supposedly superior apt system managed to hose the system for me, convincing me I'm better off with an RPM-based system after all.

/Janne

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[pater noster]

In addition, today disk space is so cheap that, if you are installing from CD, you should just install everything that doesn't conflict and let people remove later. Don't give them a lot of questions to answer.

Sounds like you've never tried to setup a secure server...

What is the problem with IIS ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me tell you something, Apache has no market share. This worm is strictly a stunt by the Green Screen Linux crowd to make themselves feel like they have a good story to tell. Let's face facts, when it comes to mission critical, secure, rock solid, industry standard web servers, there CAN BE ONLY ONE -- IIS 5.0 with SP2 (patched by Q327154, Q327155, Q327156...Q356987). This combination of software and security patches is a virtual Fort Knox of web security. Apache, with its text .conf files is no match for the unbridled power of the IIS METABASE!

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[Anonymous Coward]

"Plop a newbie right in front of a Debian installer, and they probably won't be able to do it."

What kind of newbie?

A university math professor who needs to set it up in his office? A machinist who needs to use it for recordkeeping, billing, worksheets, etc. for his shop? An office worker who needs to be able to run a web-based app? My mother who is an RN, and has used computers independently since CP/M?

How many of these people would have problems if you gave them the parts to a PC and a Windows 2000 CD?

There is nothing wrong with Windows security

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is not the problem and Linux isn't the answer. If Linux is so great then why do you have to recompile the kernel just to install a browser? I have been an MSCE for 2 years now
and I feel that I have much experience in this game. All one really needs to do is just install Zone Alarm Pro, the set-and-forget firewall. That's how I have advised my organization to solve our old Klez problems. Face the facts, as long as you're running Zone Alarm, you don't even need to check any logs but about every 6 months. No virii either.

Re:There is nothing wrong with Windows security

[eggsovereasy]

"I have been an MSCE for 2 years now" You and everyone else... "Reach around and 'work it' with his hand" You're really clueless eh?

Re:There is nothing wrong with Windows security

[TKinias]

Mod parent up

This one needs a +1 Funny

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[noshellswill]

That's all the more reason to PAY for it once ... and paying for a bullet-proof Libranet seems not just prudent but downright MORAL.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[btempleton]

Ok, I agree that you would temper this for anybody exposed on the network (which you can detect without asking of course) or for those who want to set a security level. So you don't install everything, but nor do you ask people about things they don't even know about.

Re:Is this work?

[noshellswill]

Sorry, pad're but getting paid for work is no ripoff --- that is unless you have never worked ! Yo mama still wipe yer azz and feed you -- maybe in that order?

Still not ALSA sound.

[fishbowl]

I would jump on this distribution if it supported both my soundcard (ICE1712/Envy24) [very important] and my video (Radeon 8500) [X11
AND console fb].

Yes of course I could install Alsa for the sound support, and yes of course Radeons are supported in the XFree 4.2.0, but it would not be any more (or less) convenient with "Libranet" than with stock Debian.

Before you criticize my choice of sound card, bear in mind that the Delta/Midiman cards are just about the ONLY serious choice for a pro card that works under linux. Perhaps there have been some 24/96 products released lately, but that would be big news to me.

Alas, the 2.5.33 kernel is almost the only thing needed, but, the Radeon framebuffer stuff is broken now. Maybe next week?

Re:Still not ALSA sound.

[Rysc]

Libranet 1.9.1 used ALSA by default--it was actually hard to get it not to, so I just used it. They switched away with 2.0, but you should be able to download and burn 1.9.1 ISOs from somewhere, and then apt-get yourself into the latest woody stuff.

debian

[RestiffBard]

everyone complains about debian. too slow to release, too hard to install... etc, ad nauseum.

folks. there are other distros. use them instead.

I've come to believe that mandrake is the first distro you use, red hat is the second and then once you realize that you should be reading slashdot and other such sites and start hearing about debian and graducate to that. after debian you start thinking about trying linux from scratch. thats just the nature of the beast. I kind of like it that way.

Re:debian

[Anonymous Coward]

ah so thats the order and here my dumb ass went and tried RH first then Mandrake then started trying to switch kernels in mandrake (and effectively botching everything up) to thinking of trying debian again (yes i couldnt get it to install i have no idea why im sure it somehing stupid i did/n't do tho).

Re:debian

[RestiffBard]

actually I started with debian, couldn't figure out what the hell I was doing, got red hat, botched that, got mandrake, managed that rather well, then back to debian.

I just think this is a natural progression for users. mandrake holds your hand more which is great. red hat gives you that feeling of big company to turn to, and debian has that sort of indier than thou flavor with a little apt-get thrown in for good measure. :) laugh people.

Re:debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, slackware was the first distro I used, in 1994. Had to download a lot of floppy images. Then I heard about this new "Red Hat" and tried that for a few versions. Then I went to this new "Mandrake", where I've settled for a while. I've installed debian on a spare box, but I'm not impressed.

I develop software, I'm not a professional sys admin. I want to *get things done*. I want a distro that automatically does everything that should be automatically done. Mandrake is pretty good for that.

Of course, I am thinking of trying Gentoo on that spare box...

Re:Installation amazingly hard ...

[noshellswill]

What's the problem? Numbers, pad're numbers. Can you count? Typing those four words (from nowhere) has at the absolute least, say, a complexity of ~ (250,000) ^4 while on APT-GET... is a 1-bit operation. Take the logs, pad're and deal with the entropy difference. Now, any questions? You CAN count, can't you ...?

Re:Who cares?

[Squarewav]

how exactly is it going to save millions of dollars, I could understand saving a few thousand if they were new servers, but replacing windows 2000(which I assume is paid for) with linux seems more like a way to spend money on support problems

Download the 2.0 version and upgrade?

[aquarian]

Couldn't you just install the older, 2.0 version, which you can download for free, and then upgrade using apt-get?

Re:Download the 2.0 version and upgrade?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

some things hurt pretty bad to apt-get upgrade, no matter what the friendly debian-o-philes say :)

from experience, this list can include:
gnome
kde
kernel
libc
gcc

which have so many nasty circular dependencies... apt-get upgrade all doesn't really get the job done for this complex of a maneuver.

plus, you also upgrade for having the system automatically detect more of your hardware. in this case, IDE soundcards, to begin with.

admittedly, if you're a debian hacker, you can go with 2.0. but if you're a debian hacker, you're just installing debian, anyway.

Re:Download the 2.0 version and upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

some things hurt pretty bad to apt-get upgrade, no matter what the friendly debian-o-philes say :)

from experience, this list can include: ...

Actually, I've found all of those are virtually painless (I have six megabits downstream, if the 'download time' was what you meant?).

Re:Download the 2.0 version and upgrade?

[Rysc]

As far as GNOME, KDE, and libc go, you are more or less correct. they all have certain issues when apt-get'd. However, I've upgraded gcc and the kernel (several times, in the case of the kernel) via apt without difficulty. You do have to recompile the kernel, and probably go over the settings, but this is a problem with the kernel no matter how you upgrade it.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[macshit]

I'm not sure how much better this could be done. A developers task that does not include a GUI library seems lacking; and GUI library will logically depend on X stuff.

I'm not sure I agree about the `no GUI library == lacking', but ...

It would be nice if there could be automatically-derived tasks, e.g., `install x-developer if the developer and x tasks are both selected'.

Installer?!?

[rlangis]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... WTF is with everyone griping about Debian's _installer_? It might be a *little* obtuse, but it's not insanely difficult, and for crying out loud, you only install a Debian system ONCE! After that, it's all 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade'.

Who gives a flying F if the installer sucks, as long as _after_ it is installed, the software is insanely easy to get/install/compile/whatever? With apt-src, you can even grab the latest tar.gz and let it install a freshly compiled .deb.

Re:Installer?!?

[dontkillme]

The first time I installed debian I was entirely confused, and it took me three days. The next time I installed debian (with the same net install image) it took me 20minutes. Once you've put the time into figuring it out, it's very hard to remember how hard it was the first time...So I guess I won't go so hard on the people who have trouble with the installer.

Re:Installer?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed! I'm on my first Debian install right now (*cough*VMWare*cough*), and I've yet to notice any trouble.

Re:Installer?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was there any point to that *cough*shit*cough*?

Maybe you're just an asshole.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just happens that Microsoft makes a good chunk of their money from support calls... They ain't cheap!

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[ivan256]

(if that in fact is not the very same package that insisted on dragging X along with it)

build-essential does not include X, or anything X related. The text based installer is not forgiving to people who answer questions claiming to be an expert when they are really not. If you choose the expert options in the debian installer, and you are not a debian instalation expert, you will become lost and frustrated. This is poor social engineering on the part of the debian installer team, since most other installers require you to choose 'expert' to be able to configure things the way you want to and that causes people to claim that they are experts by default whenever they install software. If you'd like a more 'friendly' installer, you can try PGI, which is graphical, and superior to anything I've seen for any OS except suse. It is not the default installer for debian yet, but it works practically perfectly, and would likely satisfy you.

What distribution you use is personal perference, so I'm not really trying to sway you in either direction, but I would like people to know that your experience is not typical. Debian is not the right choice for everybody, but it is also not the technical nightmare that you are implying.

the supposedly superior apt system

Aah, noteriety through misunderstanding. Contrary to popular belief, it is neither apt, nor the .deb format that make debian superior. .deb files and rpms are essentially equivalent. The benifit comes from the package database. All of the dependancies are consistant in the debian package database which relieves all the problems that you have installing rpms from various vendors/providers. The number of packages available directly from debian is also far greater then what is available through any other distribution.

If apt hosed your system it is either because you were using a faulty mirror, you did something wrong, or you were using unstable.

Re:Libranet-Knoppix?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. Knoppix is a Debian-based distro, which is not only useful as a "show me", but can also be installed to a HD if one wants. Got the easiest set-up I've ever seen, and is reasonably current. Updating is easy too.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[Anonymous Coward]

If it happens to install at all on my fleet of i586's....

What shite

[Anonymous Coward]

You should really check out a REAL distro like ArchLinux, your'll notice that its one above libranet on distro watch, and its packages are mostly in the green, not a single red, unlike libra which has proftpd in the red ffs! oh and lets not go into pricing plans now ;) libranet.. tossers trying to line there pockets.. nuff said.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[gmhowell]

Couple of guys at the white box shop wanted to install Linux on their machines. Asked me what was what. I said "Debian is good, but it'll take a little more to set up. RedHat is..." "No, no, RedHat is lame!"

Anyway, they went with Debian. Luckily, they have a fast 'net connection, so I could go and fix some things they probably missed (adding security.debian.org to apt.cache, etc.)

I'm glad things are working out for them, but it took me a fair bit of work. But I figured that the more people in the area who know Linux, the better... Now, I just hope they learned enough not to screw other people's Linux machines up and give Linux a bad name.

Ordering a laptop. They'll be moving Win2k into a small partition. I'll be installing Gentoo with every possible P4 optimization set. We're all looking forward to that one.

Libranet Works

[bigtreeman]

I first used Libranet v1.2.2 then 1.9.1. It was great to use. The support was good, ran fast, apt, good selection of packages, stable, easy install. I'm presently using Woody. If you're looking for something highly usable, try Libranet.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[Shelled]

I've always found the online intructions confusing, and I run Gentoo on my two machines so count out any fear of dirty hands.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[micheas]

As I remember the reason that the Progeny Installer is not yet in debian is because the Installer has not yet been ported to all the CPU types that Debian runs on.

I recall hearing that someone (can't recall whom off the top of my head) was hoping to finish the ports and get the Progeny installer into Sarge at some point.

If you don't understand why this is such a big project look at the supported architectures: Alpha, ARM, HP PA-RISC, Intel x86, Intel IA-64, Motorola 680x0, MIPS, MIPS (DEC), PowerPC, IBM S/390, and SPARC.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[zerblat]

I addition to not being ported to all archetectures, PGI (the Progeny installer) isn't as flexible and powerful as the current Debian installer. However, you can get cd images with PGI if you want to.

With all likelihood the next Debian release (Sarge) will come with a new installer that's currently in progress. Hopefully, that will solve most of the problems that people have with the current installer, e.g. lack of hardware detection.

Why bother? Do you fear Debian install? Why?

[The_Dougster]

Here's an example of a company who is scaring you into thinking that you are not smart enough to install Debian on your own, and making good money at it.

I'm sure the Libranet folks have brewed up a mighty fine installer, but the fact is that Debian is not really very hard to install. Heck if you want to be safe about it, just add an extra hard drive to your system and have at it!

Possibly what takes time about Debian is totally customizing it to make it l337 just like you are, but unfortunately you just can't buy that kind of thing.

I'll tell you what, getting XFree86 up and running with 3.3.6 used to be a major hassle because the modelines were always wrong. XFree86 v 4.x is an incredible improvement in that it can autodetect your modes via a PnP monitor a lot of the times. Heck I have a GeForce2MX in my box and never made a single modeline! (And I get 125fps with QuakeForge!) The days of pain are over, I say!

Don't be fooled, Debian is not for total gnubies, unless they be exceptionally perseverent, but anybody with a smidgeon of Linux or Unix savvy should have few troubles with it. You need to know your network parameters, and it helps a lot if you know how to edit an XF86Config-4 file, but it isn't totally neccessary anymore like it used to be.

Re:Who cares?

[The_Dougster]

You have apparently never worked in a company which has sold its IT soul to the Microsoft devil. My poor shop pays out the a$$ for crummy Win2K servers which constantly crash, perform poorly, and only serve to ensnare us deeper into the pit of Windows. I doubt we could ever escape now, as too much documentation has been written in MS Word format, too many tools are made with Excel, and too much info is stored in Access. We have to pay major licensing fees for every shitting little piece of software are are always in danger of being audited. Our MIS crew are a bunch of spies who are constantly monitoring our installed software, it really sucks.

If we could break away and use Linux or BSD, we could thumb our noses at M$ auditors and kick their sorry asses out of the building, or have them hauled off to jail for trespassing. See how the worm has turned on us?

free and easy community debian based distros exist

[Anonymous Coward]

free and easy to install community debian based distros exist:
pgi from progeny is now part of the official stable and testing distros from Debian:
http://archive.progeny.com/progeny/pgi/
http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/pgi.html

knoppix and demolinux are distros you can boot from a CD without any installing on your hard disk. Then if you like it you can choose to install it easily.
http://www.knoppix.org/
http://demolinux .org/

and the next official Debian release will also include an easy installer for the lazy people.

NKOTB

[yka]

Debian is dead, long live the Gentoo!

Debian working on new installer

[tommyq]

With all the talk about Debian installer problems in this thread, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that a new Debian installer is coming along. From what I hear, it should rock pretty hard when it's done (no, it's not based on the Progeny installer, and for good reasons).

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[Rysc]

It'x not about X-based vs. Console-based. Libranet's installer is console based, and it's MUCH easier than Debian 3.0. I've installed both, and I am not a fledgling newbie. With Libranet, I was minorly miffed that it didn't ask me a few questions I'd rather it have asked me, but it was easy to change those settings once the system booted. With Debian, I spent an hour just configuring X, because I have becomes used to at least some minimal autodetection. Sure, I could write out XF86Config-4 files myself, but I get the same results if I let such matters be autodetected, and then tweak them the tiniest bit.

Think on this: Libranet asks no hard questions during install (in 2.7, even partitioning can be "automatic" for those who have no idea what a "mount point" is) and boots you into a fully functioning Debian system, complete with gdm. Debian asks questions even I would have bee unable to answer a year ago, and boots to a command prompt.

One problem Debian "the instalkler IS easy" types have is telling the difference between "easy" and "asks me all the questions I want to be asked". The latter kind of installer is (in a sense) better, but it's not "better" in the sense that more people can use it.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[pellaeon]

Small consolation for you: I've been using apt-get on RH for several months now, with good results.

Get apt for RH from http://freshrpms.net/
Specific links for RH 7.3: http://valhalla.freshrpms.net/rpm.html?id=10

Just make sure that when you build the apt root you use file permissions ('bloat' is the term) so you can actually use it :)

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan

[CreamsicleSeventeen]

Debian doesn't autodetect or suggest any hardware.

Sigh... That's not true. I just installed Debian and it suggested quad copper IBM G5's, a GeForce5, and a Fibre array.

Non-English languages, accented characters

[leandrod]

Debian does not deal correctly with diacritical-accented characters. Most applications are just OK, but Mozilla & Galeon are not. Also, there's not a decent graphical email that can do all of local mail, POP, news and IMAP at once. Evolution, for example, crashes; Mozilla mail, besides being too big and slow is useless due to not handling accents.

Moreover, the LANG environment variable doesn't always affect GDM, Gnome and several Gnome applications consistently. For example, Galeon always launches in English, but its second window opened will be localised.

I wonder if Libranet or any other Debian derivative, or even unstable, is better?

Charging for download against GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the GPL prevented people from charging a pile of money for Linux. How is that hey can charge $50.00 just to download it?

Am I missing something?